Cached processes CPU usage

Hello everyone,
This is a question I've tried to search for an answer since quite some time but never found any so far.

It is happening on a stock HSPA+ Galaxy Nexus with JRO03C 4.1.1 Jelly Bean (bought from US play store).
Please note this behaviour was happening with Ice Cream Sandwich as well.

This happens with more than one app, but this time I'll focus on play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.merriamwebster
because it's free and I was able to reproduce this behaviour quickly.

Steps to reproduce:

-Open up Merriam Webster's app
-Write any word in the search box, than tap it in the drop down list that appears (you're brought to the word's dictionary page)
-Wait a few seconds then hit Android's home button on the bottom bar

Now check in Settings -> Apps -> Running:
You will see that the app is not on the running list but is in the cached processes list.

Now go to Developer Tools and enable "Show CPU usage" and hit home to show up the desktop.
You will see that com.merriam.webster is constantly using a small but not negligible percentage of cpu (its green bar is big enough to "highlight" the 'er' in .webster )

The only way to stop this is to stop the cached process in Settings -> Apps -> Running -> Show cached processes

I think the question now comes up by itself: "Aren't cached processes supposed not to use any CPU at all?"

Installing the ad-free version of the same app ( play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.merriamwebster.premium ) and trying to reproduce the same steps does NOT show the problem. The app is now sitting in the background without chewing CPU time.

The only difference among the 2 apps should be the fact that the paid one lacks the piece of code to retrieve and show the ads (is that made with google ads?).

This would at least point us to a culprit (the ad code).

Still I don't understand why a process which is show as cached by the system is able to use CPU cycles. This should not be possible according to Android OS Documentation.

Still I don't understand why a process which is show as cached by the system is able to use CPU cycles. This should not be possible according to Android OS Documentation.

The app isn't cached, but running, the time it consumes CPU cycles. It's just that it's only running a fraction of a second at a time, so you don't see it. In between, the app stops itself, rendering a "cached process" until the next time it wakes up, due to an intent restarting the app for a short while again.

The app isn't cached, but running, the time it consumes CPU cycles. It's just that it's only running a fraction of a second at a time, so you don't see it. In between, the app stops itself, rendering a "cached process" until the next time it wakes up, due to an intent restarting the app for a short while again.

This might be a possible explanation, however installing the ad-free version of the app eliminates this odd behaviour.
Does this mean that some ad library code is buggy and can actually cause CPU hogging?
It makes no sense to wake up a process via intent every fraction of a second when it's UI (and hence the ads) is not displayed at all.

This might be a possible explanation, however installing the ad-free version of the app eliminates this odd behaviour.
Does this mean that some ad library code is buggy and can actually cause CPU hogging?
It makes no sense to wake up a process via intent every fraction of a second when it's UI (and hence the ads) is not displayed at all.

Not every fraction of a second, just once in a while, enough for the process to stay alive. Also, at a closer look, I see no reason why a cached process shouldn't be able to consume CPU cycles. Just because the Android app terminated, I see nothing that hinders the JVM (DVM) to keep threads going. Not for very long, though, since the ActivityManager loves to slay cached processes. Where in the Android OS Documentation did you find the claims this isn't possible?

Why the ad code behaves this way, you'll have to ask them about. There can me many different reasons. Checking availability of new ads, internal administration, collecting usage statistics ... just to mention a few.

[QUOTE=kuisma;30812577]Not every fraction of a second, just once in a while, enough for the process to stay alive. Also, at a closer look, I see no reason why a cached process shouldn't be able to consume CPU cycles. Just because the Android app terminated, I see nothing that hinders the JVM (DVM) to keep threads going. Not for very long, though, since the ActivityManager loves to slay cached processes. Where in the Android OS Documentation did you find the claims this isn't possible?

Empty process
A process that doesn't hold any active application components. The only reason to keep this kind of process alive is for caching purposes, to improve startup time the next time a component needs to run in it. The system often kills these processes in order to balance overall system resources between process caches and the underlying kernel caches.

This means to me that a cached process is an "Empty process".
Not having active components means no CPU usage.
I understand that from a UNIX point of view its process and pid will still be visible when typing "ps aux" in a console, but this process should not maintain a stable CPU usage around 5% (such as the one I wrote about in the first post of this thread) no matter what.

Not every fraction of a second, just once in a while, enough for the process to stay alive. Also, at a closer look, I see no reason why a cached process shouldn't be able to consume CPU cycles. Just because the Android app terminated, I see nothing that hinders the JVM (DVM) to keep threads going. Not for very long, though, since the ActivityManager loves to slay cached processes. Where in the Android OS Documentation did you find the claims this isn't possible?

Empty process
A process that doesn't hold any active application components. The only reason to keep this kind of process alive is for caching purposes, to improve startup time the next time a component needs to run in it. The system often kills these processes in order to balance overall system resources between process caches and the underlying kernel caches.

This means to me that a cached process is an "Empty process".
Not having active components means no CPU usage.
I understand that from a UNIX point of view its process and pid will still be visible when typing "ps aux" in a console, but this process should not maintain a stable CPU usage around 5% (such as the one I wrote about in the first post of this thread) no matter what.

I agree that "empty process" here means "cached process", but I see no claim that this process must not contain a worker thread, and not consume CPU. "Empty" is in the context of Android app level, i.e. contains no activity or service (no context), not OS level.

But you can always test this quite easy. Create an app with an activity only starting a worker thread, then terminating. See if the worker thread still consumes CPU during its existence as a cached process. I believe it will. Of course, this is an artificial construct, not very useful since it doesn't have any context and can not interact with Android. Still, performing gc, updating singeltons etc, are still very possible tasks for such a worker thread.

Edit: But the ad software maintaining a 5% CPU usage as a background/cached process, I'm quite sure is due to low programming skills. But possible, yes indeed.

But you can always test this quite easy. Create an app with an activity only starting a worker thread, then terminating. See if the worker thread still consumes CPU during its existence as a cached process. I believe it will. Of course, this is an artificial construct, not very useful since it doesn't have any context and can not interact with Android. Still, performing gc, updating singeltons etc, are still very possible tasks for such a worker thread.

I agree with your line of reasoning, sometime in the coming weeks I'll try to develop a test app and then I'll post my findings here.

What keeps me mumbling on this topic is the general approach to process management on Android:

Android has been thought from the ground up with mobile devices in mind: such devices must put their CPU in the highest possible of its sleep states for as much time as possible not only when the screen is off, but also during regular usage e.g. browsing a web page.
When you read an article on your browser app, you'll want only your display chewing up battery juice and your CPU as close to 0% as possible (unless you're scrolling or zooming, but let's say you're just reading a piece without touching the screen).

With this approach in mind it should be clear that the only processes that should be able to be put into execution by the OS's scheduler are those belonging to categories 1 to 4 ( developer.android.com/guide/components/processes-and-threads.html ).

From an OS perspective, cached processes (category 5) are useful to avoid wasting otherwise empty RAM so that recently used apps can be relaunched as quickly as possible.
But if cached processes are able to use CPU cycles then this is by no means useful to the OS (nor the device), because you'll have no longer needed processes causing your CPU to exit its much beloved sleep state.

In other words:
-Having processes sit in RAM without wasting CPU is ok because it speeds up the system when you reopen those apps and still, those processes will be purged when more RAM is needed (i.e. caching).
-Having processes sit in RAM wasting CPU is not ok because the benefits you gain from caching are offset by the increased battery drain.

XDA Developers was founded by developers, for developers. It is now a valuable resource for people who want to make the most of their mobile devices, from customizing the look and feel to adding new functionality.Are you a developer?